E picture from the studied phenomena. As a result, aside from the Eurostat’s information, we analyze representative public opinion polls, searching for patterns of responses which may well be indicative of your pandemic’s social impacts. Occasionally, we draw on study final results published by other sources. Our study is descriptive. We provide an overview of statistics which may serve as a background for much more in-depth studies. 5. Final results five.1. Background Indicators on Digitalization In Poland, the same as elsewhere all through the planet, the pandemic has transformed children’s educational experiences. In an work to contain the virus, schools around the country were closed plus a months-long work was created to provide remote education for homebound youth. In most cases, these students’ schools replaced in-personSustainability 2021, 13,7 ofinstruction with a mix of synchronous and asynchronous instruction supplied via Web-based instructional technologies such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom. As a result, access to these technologies is what needs to be examined in the initial spot so as to assess the pandemic’s impact on the educational program in Poland. In 2020, 60 of households in Nitrocefin Autophagy Poland had a fixed, very-high-capacity network (VHCN) connection (equal to the typical share in the EU) [15] (p. 205). On the other hand, less than 20 of rural households enjoyed such connection [29]. These BI-0115 Inhibitor information point to the disadvantaged position of rural locations in Poland, potentially influencing scholarly performance of pupils living on these locations. In terms of connectivity, Poland doesn’t score the highest in Europe on the Digital Economy and Society Index. Its score of around 51 (covering elements for example fixed broadband take-up, fixed broadband coverage and mobile broadband) areas it behind European leaders: Denmark, Sweden and Luxemburg (score over 60), around the middle on the ranking. Poland, in addition to Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia, also lags behind other EU nations in terms of fixed coverage, with less than 90 of households covered. The coverage of subsequent generation access (NGA) technologies is specifically low in Poland, standing at around 75 in urban locations and about 30 in rural regions. Eastern regions with the country are particularly disadvantaged, with a coverage of less than 35 of households (EU average is 86 ) (The share of households enjoying high-speed Internet connections is an indicator measuring EU’s progress towards sustainable development purpose 9 (concerning industry, innovation, infrastructure). Within the countries from the European Union, 59.3 of households had a fixed, very-high-capacity network (VHCN) connection in 2020. Even though it constitutes a significant progress compared together with the circumstance numerous years ago (e.g., the figure for 2013 was 15.6 ), more than 40 of households within the EU still don’t delight in such connectivity, and access varies in distinct earnings categories and locations. For example, the share of rural households with fixed VHCN connection stood at 27.eight across the EU [15] (p. 205)). The chosen indicators are presented in Table 1, along with other individuals referred to inside the following a part of the article.Table 1. Background indicators: Poland and also the European Union (EU) compared. Indicator VHCN (very-high-capacity network) connection in 2020 Share of adults (164) possessing a minimum of fundamental digital skills in 2019 Early leavers from education and instruction in 2020 Gender pay gap in an unadjusted kind ( of typical gross hourly earnings of guys) in 2019 Gender employ.